MissEwa

It's not the same, but it is definitely an alliance-destroying move to feed someone a decoy vote. I'm really struggling to see how Gabby was supposed to react. 'Gee. They left me out of the vote but it's for my own good and I'm sure all will be fine'? Okay, hypotheticals. Let's say last week goes one of two other ways (taking Carl at his word that she was his next target after Alison, because I think all evidence points to that anyway)... 1. Christian tells Gabby about the decoy vote and she goes along with it to keep the David numbers advantage. Alison goes home. The week after, Carl uses Angelina and Mike to vote her out. She tries to get him out but doesn't have the numbers. She goes out at exactly the same time as she did. The commentary here is 90% 'What an idiot!' 'Why didn't she make a move earlier?' 'GOD, she's just like Laurel.' 'The second she knew her alliance was feeding her decoys she should have flipped.' etc. etc. 2. Christian doesn't tell her about the decoy vote. And then this week one of two things happen: a) She's (understandably) pissed and worried about her position in the Davids. The Davids reassure her that it was just because she was close to Alison, and that she's still with them, and not to worry. She believes them, goes along with whatever decoy vote they suggest, gets blindsided and goes home in exactly the same position she did. 99% of board comments this time are as above, but even more vicious because WHAT AN ABSOLUTE WET FISH RIGHT? OR b) She's (understandably) pissed and tries to flip and take Carl out in retaliation. Without Alison, she doesn't have the numbers and goes home. At the exact same time she did anyway. Generously, 75% of the commentary here is as above with 25% being a slightly less scathing 'well, she tried'. YES, she didn't have to flip on Christian this week. She would have stayed another few days - probably - if she hadn't done that, but she had to flip on Carl last week or she was gone this vote almost certainly. The only difference is she would have gone out being considered a wimp and a wuss and a failure who didn't make the moves she had to. All of this, but especially the bold. I'm not sure there's any way Gabby could have played the last two weeks that wouldn't have ben complained about endlessly.

Its been discussed at length but there was no grand betrayal of a solid alliance. Carl had brought Angelina in - despite not needing to - and was feeding Gabby a decoy vote. She was our of his alliance before she voted against him. The Davids were super-tight for two votes. Other than that, there have been cross-tribal alliances and shenanigans going on since the merge. I feel like for as much as we complain about the 'x strong' stuff and are bored by seasons where one tribe picks off another, that is still our baseline for how things should work, so when it doesn't it's surprising.

In the real world, I almost see this - although non-romantic jealousy is a thing, and I think it's perfectly normal to value and seek out unique bonds with people whether you're romantically attracted to them or not - my friends do make me feel special and valued, and I hope I do the same for them. Not in the same way I do my husband or my children, but it's not something that only exists for romantic relationships. But this is Survivor. The game where Boston Rob banned his alliance from going on walks together without him, and you can get voted out for being seen talking to the wrong person. What Gabby saw wasn't 'oh, Christian treats everyone like he treats me, so I'm not special and that sucks'. She saw 'Christian treats everyone well, and that means he will get their votes at the end.' with probably a side of 'Christian treats everyone like he treats me, so maybe he secretly has alliances with all of them too'-style concern thrown in there for good measure. It didn't feel like jealousy to me, no matter how much the editors tried.

Lol. It could even have just been that - the absolute delight on her face and the phrasing. It sounded so unnatural coming out of her mouth that it kind of did feel like she was an older person trying to sound young and cool (only she was talking to Mike and Davie(?) so I don't know why). And I don't know WHY it gave me mean-girl vibes and I will admit it maybe was just that I was like 'No.....!' at the prospect of it being Gabby.

Very late to the party this week and most things I think have been said, but... I came across something about this just recently - I can't remember if it was something IRL completely unrelated to Survivor or someone here, or elsewhere, talking about Gabby (if so, sorry for giving proper credit) or what - so this actually made perfect sense to me. So much of anxiety is about the unknown, and so much of what made Gabby cry was the lack of control and the unknowns of being in a stressful situation. It's a whole thing about imagining worst-case scenarios, and the fear of them coming true. But often when the worst thing actually happens... it's almost a relief, because it's done, so you don't have to worry any more, and it rarely feels as bad as you think it will. Gabby didn't cry when she was voted out because there wasn't anything left for her to worry about. This. I'm confused at the 'the Davids gave up the advantage' talk because the Davids haven't been a real alliance of any sort for a couple of votes now. It was Kara and it was so spot on why I think I'd bawl like a baby if I was ever in this situation (although, who am I kidding, my bawling would make Gabby look stoic all the way from Day 1...) - it's not the time or the distance, it's that you've had to be so guarded for so long, and here is someone who can't turn on you or vote you out. I think that would be a huge relief. Yep. I keep thinking that as it was, the editors were obviously trying to give us a 'Gabby is jealous' motive for the vote and the result was... this, which means that they really didn't have much to use. There's absolutely nothing to suggest he hadn't though. They kept focussing on her and she looked emotional but not surprised at all. Or just what @KimberStormer said. My five-year-old does this and I awwed. Everything about Nick and his dad made me Aww a little though. When Jeff was like 'it's turned you into a little kid' (or whatever) I laughed because Nick's dad is HUGE and that is exactly what Nick looked like cuddled up to him. I don't think it was that he was faking anything. I think it just made her realise that he was a comforting personality and that this was a huge strength and made him a threat at the end - and I agree. I like Gabby, so that was disappointing. I probably would have been disappointed if Christian had gone too though - although I would have seen that as the right move - so this was a tough episode. I was spoiled on the result not long after it aired but on holidays and only finally got around to watching it because I didn't think I'd enjoy it much. I didn't. Still, I like most of the folks left and it's a great season. I did move back into an Angelina-dislike corner though. Mostly I just think she's kind of immature and a bit ridiculous, but it skirts into mean-girly territory occasionally, and I noticed it tonight when she was talking about flipping the vote to Gabby.

Double - triple? - post. Sorry!

YMMV but I just don't see evidence of this. We see her crying maybe two minutes an episode, if that? She's obviously being edited as a 'cryer' - maybe those are the only times she cries in those three days. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount to cry, and it's possible plenty of players have cried more but it's been left out of the 43 minutes of footage we get. And most of it is less 'sobbing hysterically' (which I've never actually seen her do, I don't think) and more speaking to someone and getting a bit worked up and involuntarily teary. She gets emotional, sure, but it's not that 'losing her shit'. I think there's something about seeing someone cry that makes us uncomfortable, and I get it, but I feel like a lot of this is really getting blown out of proportion. This. It's her edit. And as well as crying she is actually making moves and playing the game. She has an emotional moment, lets it out and then gets on with what she has to do, even if it's hard. I'd rather watch Gabby have a little cry every episode and then vote out her threats than someone like Laurel who just talked and talked and talked about moves and didn't do anything.

There have been several instances where the swing vote has talking-headed that they have the power - in those words - and then been blindsided instead when everyone realised they were playing both sides. So much so that it's kind of expected now. Curiously, perhaps, I can think of three examples off the top of my head (Christy in Amazon, Cochran in South Pacific(?), and Sarah in Cagayan) and two of those people came back and won in their next season. So maybe swing votes/flippers don't win *their* seasons, but sometimes they win eventually.

Yep. I recently did a three-day Survivor role-play game thing (very briefly - it was part of a broader event but there were a dozen of us and we started at the merge, there were scheduled live events every day for challenges/tribals, and some scavenger-hunt type challenges in between. At the start of the game we were all thrown into a FB group chat and most alliances/scheming/strategy happened in smaller group chats) and despite the fact that there was no prize, it was completely for fun, I got to eat three meals a day, drink all the coffee I wanted, sleep in my own bed, wear whatever clothes I was comfortable in and see my family and best friends in between events, the anxiety and paranoia was intense. You didn't know what was happening behind your back, if you arrived for an event and an alliancemate was talking to someone else you swore you were being backstabbed, every single move was decided and we'd be like 'thats it, no need to keep discussing it' and then ten minutes later someone (sometimes me, sometimes not) would be messaging asking 'Are we sure? What if...' I honestly have a whole new respect for anyone who does real Survivor now and they can cry all they want for my money. It's HARD. Carl had said Gabby was his next target after Alison in exit interviews, so he wasn't intending to stay David strong at all. You're not staying true to your alliance if you are blatantly lying to one of them, even if it is for a reason you think is good. I can't find it, but there's a post somewhere asking if any flippers have ever won Survivor, and it got me thinking about the nature of flipping this season. It's been an interesting one - nobody's wanted to flip alone. Even the cross-tribe alliance after the merge was 3-3, and every time there's been a shift - or talk of a shift - it's been multiple players, even when it hasn't had to be (since the merge anyway). I feel like there is that fear of being seen as a flipper, meaning nobody's willing to do it unless they are doing it with someone else. Share the blood around, so to speak. But it's means it's not just the tribal lines that are blurred, it's what the actual flip is. On a very basic level, we're all talking about Gabby and Christian flipping in this episode, but they only did that because Carl brought in Angelina and pushed Gabby out of his alliance. So I would argue that Carl - and Davie and Nick, in sticking with him - were actually in the process of flipping, but Gabby and Christian caught them and voted him out before he could follow through. Carl was no more 'David Strong' (and honestly, I hate that term but it's just a catchier, more annoying way of saying 'loyal to your alliance' and it takes less time to type, so I'm using it) than they were. Gabby was annoyed with Carl but I think she would have stuck with him for a bit longer had he not blatantly left her out of the decision making to the extent of lying to her about their target. And it's interesting, because the discussion is so focussed on whether Gabby and Christian did the right thing and not what Carl was doing, and why. Two episodes ago he and Davie and Nick were so David strong they was using all their idols and advantages to to save the alliance despite being in no personal danger, and now they're working with Goliaths and abandoning that David alliance. Why? I get that Gabby's close to Alison but leaving her out of their planning and bringing Angelina in - when for the first time in the game they don't need a Goliath number to get the vote to go their way, and they have all the idols and know it - seems strange and sudden.

I agree with you except that given the various exit interviews and what we saw in the game of Angelina and Mike's interaction with the Davids, David Strong wasn't a thing any more, so there's no alliance to shore up numbers for. It wasn't like Carl wanted to go to the end with all Davids and was leading an alliance of them. He was leading an alliance of four davids and two goliaths (as far as he knew, it was actually less). In exit interviews he's said (no spoilers but just in case) If Carl wanted to protect himself with the whole David strong thing - if it was something he cared about - he should have managed Gabby better. Instead he misled her about the vote and tried to get her closest ally to lie to her. Christian and Gabby weren't the ones who flipped, they just voted in response to half their alliance doing so.

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the 'the Davids should have stuck together and gotten all the Goliaths out' thinking given the Davids already weren't sticking together - and that was much more on Carl than it was on Gabby. Why should she feel like a secure part of an alliance when the decision-makers in that alliance are feeding her false information? The thing with Gabby is that she's shown over and over that a) she wants to play and b) she doesn't want to be just told what to do. She flipped on Jessica because of the way Jessica and Bi were like 'this is the vote, we're not discussing it, just do it’. A better move, if Carl was hoping to keep working with her in future, would have been to talk to her and explain why they wanted to vote the way they did, or else actually give her a say and make Mike the target. Alison is somewhat of a challenge threat, but she’s not Joey Amazing. We talk a lot about jury management, and managing the people you're voting out, but there's something to be said for alliance management - knowing how to keep the members of your own alliance sweet, like they're involved in the decision making, not on the bottom of the alliance, and not feeling like they're just someone you're putting up with for numbers. To bring it back to the workplace analogies, if you work in a team for a while - and you're good at it - you get to know the best ways to get members of your team to respond to you; which ones need hand-holding and which ones just want to be told what to do and which ones want to feel like they're getting something out of it, and work with that. The people who make it to the end with an intact alliance that hasn't flipped on them are good at that. Carl was not.

This. I don't know about timing either, and I'm sure it won't happen in the next episode, but she's not an idiot for thinking it needs to happen at some point. Or a bitch either. I mean, are we really still doing that 'woman who plays anything but a nice clean social game = bitch' thing?

I don't see any of Nick, Mike or Angelina getting an edit that supports them winning. Of all of them Nick comes closest, but it still seems unlikely to me. Davie or (especially) Christian seem much more likely to me. Christian getting the narration of the letters from home seemed very winnery. If Angelina wins there's something seriously askew with how the show wants us to see her vs. how we are seeing her. Were we supposed to see that rice play as noble and courageous instead of an obvious and kind of clunky attempt at jury votes?

Obviously mileavge varies but I didn't see that at all. She talked to Christian, complained that she was being given a decoy play and basically dropped from her alliance, got a bit emotional and a bit angry then made a move to save her game. She didn't talk about it and then back out. She didn't expect Christian to rescue her. She just did what she had to. With some tears, but she did it. Absolutely. Thank you. I know it was weeks ago but all I could think about when she said she'd taken advanced negotiating was 'Natalie, can I have your jacket? Natalie? ...Natalie?' Usually doing something "selfless" gets you booted, just because people worry that it will get you jury points. I mean... she gave up the immunity before so she could have nachos. They'll give it lip service but probably everyone is fully aware she just did it as jury management and because she knew she was unlikely to win immunity anyway. I still can't decide if I like Alec, not that it matters because he's gone. I was impressed he stuck it out for so long but some of what he was saying to Gabby seemed kind of nasty. Not that it matters now, I guess. And I hadn't liked Alison much but maaan was I stressed in the lead-up to that second vote, and so relieved when it went that way. That little bit of power went to Carl's head, and fast. I worry about Christian, should he make it to the end now. He's only there because Carl, Davie and Nick all used their advantages and idols to save him, and he's flipped on them. That seems like a recipe for bitterness. Still, I'm glad he did it. It keeps things interesting. Mike looked like he was wearing Penner's hat in the end there. It didn't work for him.

San Juan Del Sur is Blood Vs Water 2, which was all newbies. The original Blood Vs Water was ten returnees and their loved ones.

I get it - or I get what the rules are according to Jeff. But I don't like it. Thankfully, I think it'll lead to super-conservative idol play - why play an idol on someone else when you might need two on yourself later? - and they'll scrap it soon enough.

Yeah, it seems ridiculous to me that this is the actual rule. As @blackwing notes above it basically turns a second idol into a super-idol (barring an alliance doing something ridiculously stupid like not voting for the nullifier target). I kind of get that if you were to play two idols for yourself when Jeff first asks, then only one would be null, but in that case... yeah, it does seem ridiculously unfair that they weren't told about the nullifier and that this was possible, especially given production knew that someone HAD a second idol. And I do think it's the kind of thing that should be clarified by production. Carl's parchment completely skipped over any sort of second-idol scenario, so even if the existence of the nullifier had leaked out of the David camp, it's still likely it wouldn't occur to Dan that he could play two idols. Given I don't think the players were clear on this, the leaked information could either be 'it nullifies an idol played for whoever they choose' vs. 'it nullifies idols played for whoever they choose' - literally a letter difference but a world apart in what it means for the holder of two idols.

To be honest I'm now trying to remember if I did like Blood Vs Water? I remember absolutely loathing the concept, and then being pleasantly surprised at the execution, and then being increasingly frustrated as the winner became apparent. I just googled it and I can honestly remember two moments from the entire season, and one of those was a silly line from a bootee confessional. I think there's just a period post-Phillipines (which I loved) where none of the seasons made much of an impression on me. Everything between Caramoan to Kaoh Rong either blends into one, or I outright dislike it (Worlds Apart, Cagayan). I don't even think it's a quality thing, so much as maybe a case of personal Survivor burnout. I can't even discuss those seasons without googling them and even then I'm like... huh? That happened? This is so interesting - thank you! My division is a lot cruder (pre-idol/post-idol/post-post-idol - which is hard to explain but the point where it went from just idols to whatever advantage or twist the producers could think of, thrown at the wall in desperate hope that something would stick) but I like the break-up taking into account how the seasons are cast/edited as well as gameplay and strategy. I'm trying to work out if there are more purely gameplay-based schools. I know there's a commonly-held view that Rob C "evolved" the alliance-based gameplay in Amazon, and then of course when Idols came in that changed again. Then I think there has recently been a shift to 'big move'/'building a resume' gameplay, but it's been more of a slow evolution than a series of definitive shifts.

It depends on the season, but there's a thread here which gets into a lot of the common characteristics: Spoilers for past seasons, obviously.

Yeah, for me, this is a huge point against his winning. A quick confessional spelling it out at the beginning of the next episode would have been enough, but it wasn't even mentioned. On the surface, Christian is getting more of a (good-natured) comic relief edit than a winners edit. But we do get info about how other people like him and see him as a threat, and - god, I hate to say it - Fabio also got a comic relief edit with random info about how other people liked him, so.

This, although Pearl Islands is also good and stands alone - it was my first recommendation to someone in a similar position (came to the show at MvGenX, I think, and wanted recommendations to go back, very spoiler-averse). Your friend has given you a super-interesting list of seasons to watch, and one that I've never seen anywhere else. It's fascinating to me the difference in people's perceptions, and I'd kind of like to know more about what drove some of those recommendations! That said, of that list: Pearl Islands is good, and a good starting point, as I've said above. I like All Stars, but it's super-divisive. I have a soft spot for Samoa for reasons that have nothing to do with the show (I got engaged there while they were filming it and everywhere we went people asked us if we were from Survivor) but it's not good. The only reason to watch RI is if you've seen All Stars and Heroes Vs Villains and want more of a certain player. I like it, but I can't imagine coming to it cold. Caramoan you couldn't pay me enough to watch again, and HvHvH is pretty lousy. Cook Islands is great. I didn't like Blood vs Water, although it had its moments. Cagayan is often beloved but I hated it. I liked Cambodia and MvGenX. Game Changers I honestly can't remember and Ghost Island I did like a lot but I had to look it up to see if it was the one I was thinking of, so I don't know how memorable it is. Panama is fantastic, as is Heroes Vs Villains (IMO, it's divisive). Worlds Apart is worlds apart from them, in that it's the actual worst. The problem I have recommending seasons when going back is that some of the ones I genuinely think are the best are returnee seasons, and so they a) generally play better if you've seen earlier seasons and b) will spoil earlier seasons for you, so if you don't want to be spoiled but think you might eventually watch most seasons, it tangles everything up. With that said, and keeping things very vague, so as not to spoil anything, here's where I'd start (and how I'd go on): As KimberStormer said: Panama, Cook Islands, China. All three are great stand-alone seasons and show a clear evolution of the game re. idols etc. You could then watch Fiji and Vanuatu - neither are great but they have their moments, but provide good background for Micronesia. THEN Micronesia, which is my favourite season and is great by most metrics. After that, Tocantins is a good stand-alone - a mostly likeable cast with a couple of very clear exceptions, but even they are vaguely entertaining at this point. The next big mostly-beloved-but-divisive returnee season is Heroes Vs. Villains. Pearl Islands, All Stars, Palau, Gabon and Samoa will all give you background into HvV so maybe watch them first. Of those, Pearl Islands is the best but All-Stars is maybe the most essential. Palau is interesting because of how it plays out. Gabon and Samoa are mostly skippable and only for completists. From there, it's patchy, and recommendations come harder. You can watch Redemption Island, or not - depending on how you're feeling and whether you're sick of a couple of players. I like One World, but the first few episodes are a lot to get through. Phillipines is fantastic, mostly, and a high-point for the 20-something seasons (IMO - mileage varies). As mentioned, people also like Cagayan (brains/brawn/beauty). I could go on, but it does get harder and harder. I will note that most of my recommendations ignore the earliest seasons. IMO, as someone who came to the show in S19 and then went back and watched most seasons, it's hard to go from "modern-day" Survivor back to those seasons. They're not worse, at all, but the game has changed and it's a shift in thinking. I did like Amazon though. And Guatemala (which is best watched after Palau, and is one of the most underrated seasons of the show, IMO). I hope that was more helpful than confusing! Happy watching!

It would have been more risky, this is true. And yeah, as fas as I can tell, the nullifier is pretty much useless from a minority position (two exceptions being if they have a vote steal that gives them the numbers or if they also play an idol correctly - things that this particular group of players have shown themselves capable of). I can see why they made the decision they did.

This is what I assumed @ProfCrash and @SVNBob, glad I'm not alone. Coming back to the idol nullifier - just because it's new and interesting and I am fascinated by the way it's been received - I think I'm of the opinion that while it was played "correctly" in this episode (and it was great fun to watch) it wasn't played strategically. Someone mentioned in the episode thread that they wished the Davids had saved the nullifer and just voted out Mike, and I think I agree. When Carl etc. were talking about how they needed to figure out who was going to play the idol, and lure them into doing it to make sure, it occurred to me that if they could do that, then the better move was to save the nullifier and vote for someone else, especially at this point in the game where you have several options. It's more risky, but not by a whole lot, depending on how certain you are (and in this case, that risk is mitigated by the fact that they also have an unsuspected idol and a good idea of who the other side is gunning for, should things go awry). And then that got me thinking that, at least until, say F7/6ish, when the numbers are a lot tighter and there's a lot less room for error, the best time to play the nullifier is actually when you don't know who has the idol (but, I guess, are reasonably sure someone does). If you know - or you're almost certain and feel confident you can play it so they feel threatened enough to use it - you have options. If you don't, you're flying blind, and the nullifier protects your vote no matter who has the idol. An exception to that would be, I guess, if there's a very specific person that you need to get out and you may not get another chance - a Joey Amazing type, who'll likely go on an immunity tear, or a Boston Rob head-of-the-snake that is holding a whole alliance together - then you vote for them and play the nullifier, whether you're 100% sure they have an idol or not. But if you're just in 'us vs them and we need to pick someone' mode, then it's smarter to try to figure out who has the idol first and work around it another way, and if you can't, then use the nullifier.

Question about the vote steal: how does it work if there's a revote? Say, for example, the Davids hadn't played the nullifer this time, but still voted for Dan, and the Goliaths had all voted for Christian and not split. Nick steals Allison's vote, so it's 6-5 to the Davids. Dan plays his idol, so Christian plays his, meaning all votes are nullified and there's - presumably - a revote. Does Nick get Allison's vote again?

Well that was wonderful, and exactly what I was hoping would happen, and now the numbers are even and the Davids have an idol and the Goliaths just have a whole lot of discontent. That said... I thought it was awesome that they played it, and successfully, and it made for a great episode, but when they were talking about how they had to figure out who was going to use the idol and lure them into using it, and zeroing in on Dan, I started to agree with you. At this stage in the game, if you're absolutely sure someone is going to play the idol, and on themselves, then just let them burn it and vote for someone else. The nullifier is actually more effective, IMO, if you're not sure who has the idol, because it means you don't have to guess or split votes, you just pick your target and use the nullifier on them to make sure they don't play an idol. Any other idols that get played are a bonus. They were almost certain Dan was going to play an idol for himself, so the better move would have been to let him and vote for Mike. Then the Goliaths have no idol, and you still have a nullifier AND an idol and you can vote for Dan next time. I get this, but I'm not sure what difference it would have made. If he knew there was a nullifier in play, there's not really much he could have done, except not be so gloaty.